Cargando…

Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma

Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chan, Emily, McKenney, Jesse K., Hawley, Sarah, Corrigan, Dillon, Auman, Heidi, Newcomb, Lisa F., Boyer, Hilary D., Carroll, Peter R., Cooperberg, Matthew R., Klein, Eric, Fazli, Ladan, Gleave, Martin E., Hurtado-Coll, Antonio, Simko, Jeffry P., Nelson, Peter S., Thompson, Ian M., Tretiakova, Maria S., Troyer, Dean, True, Lawrence D., Vakar-Lopez, Funda, Lin, Daniel W., Brooks, James D., Feng, Ziding, Nguyen, Jane K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7
_version_ 1784754277591285760
author Chan, Emily
McKenney, Jesse K.
Hawley, Sarah
Corrigan, Dillon
Auman, Heidi
Newcomb, Lisa F.
Boyer, Hilary D.
Carroll, Peter R.
Cooperberg, Matthew R.
Klein, Eric
Fazli, Ladan
Gleave, Martin E.
Hurtado-Coll, Antonio
Simko, Jeffry P.
Nelson, Peter S.
Thompson, Ian M.
Tretiakova, Maria S.
Troyer, Dean
True, Lawrence D.
Vakar-Lopez, Funda
Lin, Daniel W.
Brooks, James D.
Feng, Ziding
Nguyen, Jane K.
author_facet Chan, Emily
McKenney, Jesse K.
Hawley, Sarah
Corrigan, Dillon
Auman, Heidi
Newcomb, Lisa F.
Boyer, Hilary D.
Carroll, Peter R.
Cooperberg, Matthew R.
Klein, Eric
Fazli, Ladan
Gleave, Martin E.
Hurtado-Coll, Antonio
Simko, Jeffry P.
Nelson, Peter S.
Thompson, Ian M.
Tretiakova, Maria S.
Troyer, Dean
True, Lawrence D.
Vakar-Lopez, Funda
Lin, Daniel W.
Brooks, James D.
Feng, Ziding
Nguyen, Jane K.
author_sort Chan, Emily
collection PubMed
description Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for “large” vs “small” cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan–Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining “large” cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9314256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93142562022-07-27 Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma Chan, Emily McKenney, Jesse K. Hawley, Sarah Corrigan, Dillon Auman, Heidi Newcomb, Lisa F. Boyer, Hilary D. Carroll, Peter R. Cooperberg, Matthew R. Klein, Eric Fazli, Ladan Gleave, Martin E. Hurtado-Coll, Antonio Simko, Jeffry P. Nelson, Peter S. Thompson, Ian M. Tretiakova, Maria S. Troyer, Dean True, Lawrence D. Vakar-Lopez, Funda Lin, Daniel W. Brooks, James D. Feng, Ziding Nguyen, Jane K. Mod Pathol Article Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for “large” vs “small” cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan–Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining “large” cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma. Nature Publishing Group US 2022-02-10 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9314256/ /pubmed/35145197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Chan, Emily
McKenney, Jesse K.
Hawley, Sarah
Corrigan, Dillon
Auman, Heidi
Newcomb, Lisa F.
Boyer, Hilary D.
Carroll, Peter R.
Cooperberg, Matthew R.
Klein, Eric
Fazli, Ladan
Gleave, Martin E.
Hurtado-Coll, Antonio
Simko, Jeffry P.
Nelson, Peter S.
Thompson, Ian M.
Tretiakova, Maria S.
Troyer, Dean
True, Lawrence D.
Vakar-Lopez, Funda
Lin, Daniel W.
Brooks, James D.
Feng, Ziding
Nguyen, Jane K.
Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title_full Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title_fullStr Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title_short Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
title_sort analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145197
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7
work_keys_str_mv AT chanemily analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT mckenneyjessek analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT hawleysarah analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT corrigandillon analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT aumanheidi analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT newcomblisaf analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT boyerhilaryd analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT carrollpeterr analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT cooperbergmatthewr analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT kleineric analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT fazliladan analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT gleavemartine analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT hurtadocollantonio analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT simkojeffryp analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT nelsonpeters analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT thompsonianm analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT tretiakovamarias analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT troyerdean analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT truelawrenced analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT vakarlopezfunda analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT lindanielw analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT brooksjamesd analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT fengziding analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma
AT nguyenjanek analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma